Skip to main content

About your Search

20120928
20121006
Search Results 0 to 8 of about 9 (some duplicates have been removed)
of the supreme court, certainly intellect, experience, obs vance of the rule of law and precedent. but the supreme court is the final word of what is the law of the land and so therefore i don't want to see more who say that discrimination against women and discrimination based on gender is not protected against under the constitution. when i go by the supreme court on my way to work every day over the mantle it says equal justice under law. it does not say equal justice for some people in america and not for others. and as it relates to row v. wade, i support that. i support a woman's right to choose. my opponent i don't know which view he has. last year he was prolife, now he's pro-choice. >> senator business and industry complain that the 2010 fair act will be expensive and cut into profits and slow the economic recovery. how do you respond to critics who argue that the economic burden of implementing this policy will wind up costing even more american jobs? >> first of all, the reality is what did he have before the law, double premium increases, unsustainable for a family who
, that's what we did. [applause] the new health care law helps make sure you don't have to worry about going broke just because you or a loved one gets sick. insurance companies can no longer put lifetime limits on your care. or jack up your premiums without reason. or drop your coverage when you need it most. they can no longer discriminate against children with pre-existing conditions. and soon they will no longer be able to deny you coverage based on pre-existing conditions like breast cancer or charge you more for the same care just because you're a woman. this law has already allowed nearly seven million young adults under the age of 26 to sign up and stay on their parents' health care plan. it's already saved millions of seniors on medicare hundreds of dollars on their prescription medicine. and millions of americans have actually gotten a rebate from their insurance company if that company -- you got one? [applause] i wanted to say -- i mean, she was a supporter. but i didn't know about -- [laughter] you get a rebate if the insurance company spent too much on demitch costs and c
health care law last june. so how might mitt romney change the high court if he becomes president of the united states? he's already giving all of us some major clues. let's bring in cnn's crime and justice correspondent joe johns who's taking a closer look. what are you seeing? >> the supreme court doesn't get talked about that much on the campaign trail. but choosing a justice is one of the most important things a president does. it's how on administration puts its mark on some of the nation east toughest, most divisive issues. and we have a look at how mitt romney might handle it if he's president. whenever mitt romney fielded questions during the primaries about his picks for the supreme court, he was armed with a stock republican answer. >> what i would look to do would be to appoint people to the supreme court that will follow strictly the constitution as opposed to to legislating from the bench. >> reporter: but he wouldn't choose a favorite. >> would you pick one, please? >> yes, roberts, thomas, alito and scalia. >> reporter: all that changed in june when roberts cast the
don't understand where that law came from, i thought a majority is anything that's above 50%, and i don't know where this 60% came from. maybe you could enlighten us on exactly the origin of that filibuster law. host: well, andy, that would take way too long for me to explain, but perhaps we'll do that as a segment on the "washington journal" and take our viewers and listeners through the intricacies of the rules of the house and senate. but thanks for your call. we're going to move on to ron on our line for democrats, calling from florida. good morning, ron. caller: good morning. host: ron, divided party -- one party or divided government? caller: well, that question is -- the underlying point is you're saying a -- in essence, what you're saying is a one-party state, and that just doesn't work. it was proved in the soviet union and the place where i immigrated from, which was cuba. the problem is, as someone said, this is not your father's republican party. when you have a new crop signing a pledge before they even take office that allows them no room to negotiate, on top of that,
what treatments are given. that's explicitly prohibited in the law. but let's go back to what governor romney indicated, that under his plan, he would be able to cover people with pre- existing conditions. that isn't what your plan does. what your plan does is to duplicate what's already the law, which is that if you are out of health insurance for three months, then you can end up in getting continuous coverage and an insurance company can deny you if it's been under 90 days. -- cannot deny you if it's been under 90 days. but that's already the law, and that doesn't help them and the people out there with preexisting editions. -- the millions of people out there with preexisting conditions. there's a reason why governor romney set up the plan he did in massachusetts. it wasn't a government takeover of health care. it was the largest expansion of private insurance. but what it does say is that, insurers, you've got to take everybody. that also means you've got more customers. but when governor romney says he'll replace it with something but cannot detail how it will be replaced and the
in elections. but challengers say with more minorities elected nationwide, the law is outdated. >> we have african-americans, representing districts in the deep south that are almost all white. >> and the federal law called the defense of marriage act signed by president clinton. it says the federal government will recognize only conventional marriages, meaning no federal benefits in states where same-sex marriage is already equal. in the court did strike the law down, states would not be required to permit same-sex marriages but the federal government would have to recognize them where they're legal. craig, back to you. >> pete williams in washington. thanks so much for that let's switch gears to indiana and the senate race where things just got lot more interesting. a few months ago, tea party star, richard murdoch, defeated veteran republican senator richard luger. murdoch's campaign was built on framing dick luger as a rhino, a republican in name only. but guess who has gone rhino? you got it, it's murdoch. an apparent attempt to pander to moderate voters by scrapping the ultraconserva
lawsuits pending that could negate some of the new laws that are intended to require photo ids for voters? >> first observation is, in terms of the case in maryland, that was one misguided example. never should have happened. the race was not that close. it was a huge mistake by that individual and he paid for it with a time in prison. in terms of your concerns about voter i.d., and having to show id, i live in virginia and just got my voter card. they allow any kind of thing, a utility bill, or anything like that. it is a lot easier to vote then to get on an airplane. if you are worried about fraud, i think that these are reasonable requirements. >> in terms of polling, to the extent that both firms can, we try to pull a registered voter list. registered voters who have presumably -- i mean, we try to sample who have not only registered -- people who have not only registered but voted in the last election. >> in a lot of states, they have to have a photo id. how do you account for that? >> our callers asked you to show them your folder id -- your photo i.d. >> not a lot that you can do.
Search Results 0 to 8 of about 9 (some duplicates have been removed)